UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6526

KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None Royal Blackness,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT; GARY D. MAYNARD; ROBERT WARD; GARY A. BOYD; GENE 

NOLES; JAMES SLIGH; DEBRA WISE; ALVIN GRABER; LESTER HINSON, 

JR.; MS. HILL, OFC; DORIS CURENTON; MARY STEWART; DEAN DAY; 

MARCIA R. FULLER; T. W. THOMAS; LAURIE F. BESSINGER; BERNARD 

MCKIE; STEVENSON, Associate Warden; SAMUEL LATTA; JAMES 

CHRISTENSEN; WILLIE MASON; HAROLD SCOTT; SERGEANT SHIVERS; 

E. JENNINGS; E. REARDON; J. KIRCHER; S. BROWN; M. HAYES; 

ROLLAND MOODY; S. HORSELY; JOEL MOORE; KENNETH JONES; NURSE 

MURPHY; JOHN DOE, JR.; JANE DOE; RICHARD P. STROKER; MARY 

DAVENPORT ANDERSON; LEON LOTT, JR.; DANIEL E. JOHNSON; DAVID 

WILSON; CARLTON MEDLEY; DAVID MILDRED; JAMES ROBINSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (9:04-cv-01819-PMD)

Submitted: August 27, 2010 Decided: September 23, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON, 

MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Sheally 
2

Venus Poe, ALLEN, KOPET & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Smith, a/k/a Bar-None Royal Blackness, a South 

Carolina inmate, appeals a district court order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the 

Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissing 

his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Under RLUIPA:

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the 

religious exercise of a person residing in or confined 

to an institution . . . even if the burden results 

from a rule of general applicability, unless the 

government demonstrates that imposition of the burden

on that person-

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 

interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that 

compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). In Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246 (4th 

Cir. 2008), this court affirmed the dismissal of Smith’s 

complaint in all respects except for his RLUIPA claim. We 

remanded the case for further consideration of whether the 

Defendants met their burden of establishing that the grooming 

policy at issue furthered a compelling governmental interest and 

whether the policy was the least restrictive means of furthering

that interest. 

The Defendants filed a renewed motion for summary 

judgment and submitted additional affidavits in support of the 

motion. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation 
4

finding the Defendants established both compelling governmental 

interests and that the grooming policy was the least restrictive 

means of furthering those interests. The district court agreed 

and granted summary judgment to the Defendants. 

This court reviews a district court’s order granting 

summary judgment de novo. Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, 

482 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc). “At the summary 

judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as 

to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary judgment “should be 

rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure 

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is 

sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to 

return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); see also Scott, 550 U.S. at 

380 (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a 

rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is 

no ‘genuine issue for trial.’”). “As to those elements on which 

it bears the burden of proof, a government is only entitled to 

summary judgment if the proffered evidence is such that a 
5

rational factfinder could only find for the government.” Smith, 

578 F.3d at 250. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

Defendants established entitlement to summary judgment for the 

reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court. 

We have considered Smith’s arguments and find the arguments 

without merit or support in the record. Accordingly, we affirm. 

We deny the motion to file an amicus brief. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED